Subject: Re: maintaining bash
From: "David Dindorp" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:19:06 +0200

Brian Dessent wrote:
> Furthermore, threads in the past have
> expressed the fact that 2.05b has been very stable and both Ronald and
> others have agreed that any major changes in bash would have to be
> done very carefully so as not to cause instability.

Uhm.  No it's not..
Bash 2.05b is so unstable under Cygwin that it classifies as a
volatile chemical.  At least if you put it under a lot of pressure -
a normal users everyday use it may cope fine with, which is probably
how it's used by most people in here anyway.

To be fair, this is probably more a Cygwin DLL problem than a bash
problem, or perhaps a "bash hasn't kept up with changes in Cygwin
because the maintainer haven't had the time" problem.  It's running
quite stable under 1.5.10, it sucks with 1.5.12 and 1.5.13 and any
of the latest snapshots..  (Haven't tried 1.5.11, but I will as soon
as I get the time.)

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/